DST's

I have a question: why would a trainee get terminated when other trainees have been passed for the same thing? Did we not give this guy a fair chance? The FTO that terminated him must have forgotten where he came from. One day he's going to get his.

Who is the DST you are referring to? What was the reason, if any, given for the termination? Just curious. :?:

Mad Woman...We are all sorry that a friend of your's got their feelings hurt when they were asked to turn in their gear, but the truth is, no FTO ever terminates a trainee. There is a proceedure for identifying problems, and doing the best to get the trainee over them. When a trainee has been given a reasonable amount of additional training, and is still showing the inability to meet standards, it is up to command staff to make the final call. The fact is, some people are just not cut out for the job. Have some of these made it through in the past ? Sure they have. But is it fair to the trainee, the public, other officers, and the agency to keep an officer that cannot show the ability to meet minimum standards ? The SRSO FTO program has the goal to work as hard as it can to get trainees through the program, but in the end, it is the trainee that determines success or failure.

Glad to see that our agency has designated Sgt. Enterkin as the spokesman for the FTO program!!! Again, who was the DST involved?

According to Sgt. Enterkin..."it is up to command staff to make the final call. The fact is, some people are just not cut out for the job." Just curious how this same almightly "command staff" allows a supervisor who openly admits to having SEX on duty retain his rank, and even his JOB for that matter?

At least he has the courage to post his name and give an intelligent response. As for ME and you...? I guess we're just cowards hiding behind anonymous postings! Then again, I haven't offered any criticism.

What the heck does that have anything to do with a trainee being let go??? Why is that people insist on displacing blame on other people when things don't go the way they would have liked them to? The sergeant's actions and that of the trainee are two totally different issues and to exploit the sergeant's indiscretions on this board seem nothing more than exploitative.

Do I need to back off for some reason??? If so, please, by all means let me know!!! Am I afraid to post my name? No, I am just smart enough not to attach my name to a reply that seems to imply that I might be an "authorized" spokeperson for our agency's FTO program and its procedures.

Not trying to displace any blame. Just merely pointing out that our "command staff", who some supposedly give so much credit to for making the "right" decisions, sure do seem to waiver quite heavily when delivering their recommendations!

Glad to see that our agency has designated Sgt. Enterkin as the spokesman for the FTO program!!! Again, who was the DST involved?

Nobody has "designated" me to do anything. The purpose of my post was to address the implication that it is somehow the FTO's fault a trainee did not make it. Speaking as an FTO and a new supervisor, I find it insulting to imply an FTO should pass someone just because someone else made it before and the FTO in question will, "get his". I have no idea who this trainee is, but the last few the have been let go, all had been given additional time with different FTO's. I've said all I wanted, I am done with this thread.

You may want to check into the official view of the "command staff" regarding giving public comments on agency procedures without being so designated! Even though your comments may be well intended, the message relayed may not be what "they" want conveyed on the matter. Remember, you are an employee of our agency, and your comments (even on this blog) are subject to further scrutiny when posted in such an "official" sounding tone. I would have simply refered the "MAD WOMAN" to a more suitable provider of answers (IE. our great PIO).

I was talking about Brown. He shouldn't have been fired. He was not treated fairly!! :x

OK I give up, whose the Sgt. who readily admits having sex on duty?

The sgt that poked a Tom Thumb clerk kept his job cause he told the truth. I won't mention his name but it but a winter in Maine could be a clue. The DST is a totally separate thing :twisted:

And I thought we had problems in ESCO...

You think you can have all the fun over there. Not to diminish our issues, but when you compair the posts, we don't even get close. Good luck over there, it's going to be a long and interesting campaign.

As long as it wasn't his daughter's best friend, sex on duty is an acceptable thing? Wait, I forgot. It's ok to do the daughter's best friend, too!

Jeff? Are you listening?

Oh wait! The daughter's best friend wasn't on duty so that makes it ok!!

Oh my. I meant he wasn't on duty with the daughter's best friend. I get confused sometimes.

What the hell does all that have to do with the DST getting canned? Not a damn thing. The issue is with a DST who did not get a fair chance. He was terminated when he shouldnt have been. Did the FTO really try to help him or did he want to be the new "terminator?" I may not work the road but at least I know when something is not right.

That last statement is like saying, "I'm not an engineer, but there is no reason the Twin Towers should have fallen". Instead of coming here with wild, uneducated accusations, how about becoming informed.

Ok let's get this part straight. I did work the road for a while and now I don't. I went through FTO like everyone else. The FTO's are supposed to help the new people. Getting rid of somebody isn't helping them. The FTO must think that's ok to fire someone at will. Corey needed his help and he didn't get it. Don't think because I don't work the road I don't know what I'm talking about. :evil:

If I am so uniformed, why don't you "inform" me on what happened? I think if somebody didn't live up to that FTO's "standards" they don't have a chance. Enlighten me.

why not just walk up to one of the fto's and ask first without jumping to conclusions? or the lt in charge of the fto program? sounds like someone is mad because they are clinging to a preconceived notion that has not been substantiated by facts. i am sure that any of the recent dst's will attest that our fto program is fair, even those who did not make it through.

Madder,

So what you are saying is, you USE to work the road, as in, you couldnt cut it either, and are now mad that your friend didnt make it?

Should the SO keep everybody who applies, even if they are not capable of performing? That is a danger to the public and the staff. He has every chance to improve, and was only terminated when he showed no hope of doing so. it is not in the best interest of the department to fail everybody...by the time they even get to the FTO program, the SO has spent thousands of dollars on them.

He didnt make it, but he has only himself to look to for why. Not everybody is good at this job, and the FTO program is designed to identify those people and remove them. It is not hte academy...it is not to build confidence or a foundation...it is to create a self-sufficient officer, and that was just not going to happen with Corey.

Whatever.

That is not the point Corey knew how to do his job. I know several officers that aren't self sufficient but they made it. I keep hearing about the one in Pace that can't go to the bathroom without asking his supervisor how to do it. He was a trainee of the same FTO that booted Corey. Why did &$ make it and Corey did not?